5. Reiterates its concern about the procedure to be applied to data protection; deems the fact that the agreement on judicial cooperation is based on Article 23 of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 29 May 2000 to be inadequate, given that the United States is party neither to that Convention nor to the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime (signed in Budapest on 23 November 2001) and that there are, therefore, no common principles on which to act with regard to (a) the correct use of data, (b) the integrity thereof and (c) the rights of the data subject to rectification and erasure if the data are inaccurate; believes, further, that, since US legislatio
n is not subject to ...[+++]verification for compliance with the principle of proportionality that is required by European law, a very detailed study should be made of the possible impact of US legislation, such as the Homeland Security Act, before the agreement in question is ratified; recommends that the agreements should provide for data-protection guarantees that are at least equivalent to the provisions of the Council of Europe’s Convention dated 28 January 1981;